Introduction
The reader might wonder why the children of Israel
had to offer sin-offerings—had not the blood sprinkled on the
mercy-seat on the day of atonement (see Lev. 16: 14-15) laid the
righteous basis upon which God could be in relationship with them?
What need was there of sin offerings (see Lev. 4: 1-5: 13)? The sin
offerings were there to restore to communion
those of God’s people who had sinned “against any of the
commandments of Jehovah” (Lev. 4: 2). Privilege is always
accompanied by responsibility. Israel were God’s people, but sin is
never a light matter with God, and even a slight infringement of the
old covenant required an answer. Hence, unlike the sweet savour
offerings, the sin-offering was not voluntary but compulsory, and
without it there could be no restoration to communion with Him who
is “of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on
mischief” (Hab. 1: 13).
God is still holy, and we are still
prone to sin (see 1 John 2: 1), but God’s people have no
need to bring such sin offerings now. Why? Because all
the believer’s sins were born in Christ’s “body on the tree” (1 Pet.
2: 24) two thousand years ago—including any sin just committed.
Unlike Israel, we do not offer new sin offerings every time we sin,
and nor do we seek a fresh application of Christ’s blood on the
basis of 1 John 1: 7, for all is settled forever. If 1 John 1: 7 was
about the re-application of the blood, it would surely say, ‘if we
do not walk in the light as he is in the
light … the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin’
but instead it is “if we walk in the light as he is in the light …
the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin”. The
sense is not how we walk, but
where we are walking—not about walking
according to the light but walking in
the light. If true believers, we are walking in the light of the
Christian revelation and, as being there, we know that the blood of
Jesus Christ has cleansed all our sin. John is not saying that
Christ’s blood is always cleansing from sin, or even when the
cleansing was done but simply that that is what the
blood does—it cleanses from all sin. The Israelite
knew nothing of being “once purged” (Heb. 10: 2), but Christians are
in the good of the new covenant, where sins are not remembered “any
more” and “where there [is] remission of these” (the sins) “[there
is] no longer a sacrifice for sins” (vs. 17, 18).
An Imperfect Picture
Now there is tendency to read too much into the OT
types, forgetting that they are an imperfect representation, a
“shadow of the coming things, not the image itself” (Heb. 10: 1).
Thus while Christians can rejoice in the light of a sacrifice whose
blood cleanses “from all sin” (1 John 1:
7, my emphasis), the law only had in mind “If a soul shall sin
through inadvertence against any of the commandments of Jehovah [in
things] that ought not to be done” (Lev. 4: 2)—deliberate or wilful
sin was not provided for.
Again, the book of Hebrews presents
Christ as the offering priest as well as the offering, but it does
not follow that the priest in Lev. 4 is to be taken a picture of
Christ. In Heb. 9: 14, the reference is to the day of atonement—a
separate type—not the regular sin-offering. In Heb. 10: 11, the
“daily ministering” and “offering often” by the priests imply that
the regular sin-offering is in view (at least as regards them), but
“he, having offered one sacrifice” (v12) must surely refer
to the work on the day of atonement. Overall, I think it is better
to confine the subject of Lev. 4 to Christ as the
sin-offering itself and to leave Christ’s priesthood
to Lev. 16.
The Priest that is Anointed
The first class of sinner that comes before us in
Lev. 4 is “the priest that is anointed” (v3)¬—an expression that
recalls the high priest (see Lev. 21: 10; Num. 35: 25) on whose head
the holy anointing oil was poured (see Exod. 29: 7; Lev. 8: 12; 21:
10, 12). However, the expression High Priest is not used in
Lev. 4, and while Aaron and his sons are mentioned in connection
with all the free-will offerings, Aaron is not mentioned by name in
relation to the sin offering and nor are his sons referenced.
Instead, the term “the priest that is anointed” (see Lev. 4: 3, 5,
16) is used—with the anointing being the
feature emphasised by the Spirit of God.
Now apart from the anointed priest, all
the sinners described in relation to the various sin-offerings are
said to be forgiven. It can be assumed that with the offering of the
prescribed sacrifice the priest was forgiven, but it does not
say so. Some see in this a reference to
the impeccable character of Christ, our high priest, for He never
had anything to be forgiven of. However, if the omission refers to
Christ, then so must the earlier description of the “priest that is
anointed” as offering “for his sin which he hath sinned” (v3). It is
the same priest (and what is left out
should not be given more weight than what is included).
The real reason why the anointed priest
is not said to be forgiven may lie in the nature of his sin—for it
was “according to the trespass of the people” (Lev. 4: 3). What does
this mean? A better rendering would be to the guilt of the
people—that is, if he should sin so as to bring guilt on the
people without their sinning. When the people sinned in their own
right then it says, “it shall be forgiven them” (v20)—as feeling
their guilt, they needed that reassurance. However, when the
personal failure of the priest implicated the assembly (for he was
their representative) then the focus shifts to how his action
cleared them.
Rather than representing Christ, it is
more fitting to take “the priest that is anointed” (Lev. 4: 3) as
picturing the Christian as “anointed” (2 Cor. 1: 21) by the Holy
Spirit, in which capacity he can serve God in the Christian
priesthood (see 1 Pet. 2: 5, 9). The words “he hath sinned” (Lev. 4:
3) can apply to such, and Scripture teaches that personal failure
can bring guilt on the assembly, for “a little leaven leavens the
whole lump” (1 Cor. 5: 6), and that there is guilt by association
(see Josh. 7; Rev. 18: 4 etc.). Whether in relation to his own sin
or the assembly sinning in its own right, it is as “anointed” (see
Lev. 4: 5, 16) that the priest brought the blood of the offering
into the tent of meeting. Hence sins affecting the company demand a
suitably spiritual response if communion is ever to be restored.
The Sin Offerings for the Priest and for
the People
The procedure of the sin offerings for the “priest
that is anointed” Lev. 4: 3) and for “the whole assembly” (v13) are
very similar, because the sin in both cases is one that affected the
whole.
Now if the priest that is anointed
should sin in such a way as to implicate the people in his error,
then “for his sin which he hath sinned shall he present a young
bullock without blemish to Jehovah for a sin-offering” (v3). A young
bullock was also to be brought when the assembly sinned in its own
right (see v14). It is a grave matter for the company to be
embroiled in sin, and the response God demands implies a deep
appreciation of all that Christ had to die for. Hence the offering
for the priest or for the assembly was the largest—larger than even
that for the prince (see vs. 22-26).
The lack of blemish in the bullock
speaks of Christ’s perfection—an absolute necessity in an offering
for sin—and its slaughtering at “the entrance of the tent of meeting
before Jehovah” (v4) sets out how a holy God can only meet his
erring children on the basis of the death of a perfect victim. The
offerer, having no righteousness of his own to plead, must “lay his
hand on the bullock’s head” (v4) as the token of transferring his
guilt to the victim—or, in the case of the sin of the people, the
“elders of the assembly” (representing the whole) “shall lay their
hands on the head of the bullock before Jehovah” (v15).
The Blood of the Offering
Next, “the priest that is anointed shall take of
the bullock’s blood, and bring it into the tent of meeting; and the
priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood
seven times before Jehovah before the veil of the sanctuary” (vs. 5,
6). How perfectly full all this is: blood is brought not only
to but into the tent
of meeting and sprinkled seven times in
the presence of God! That this was the action of the priest that is
anointed suggests that this is spiritual work, requiring a deep
awareness of God’s holiness and the affront to Him of sin in His
people.
However, not only was the blood was
presented to God but “all the blood” (v7) was poured “at the bottom
of the altar of burnt-offering, which is at the entrance of the tent
of meeting” (v18)—outside the holy place
where the priests operated, and where all could see it. This was for
the people so that they would know that atonement had been made for
their sin. That it should be poured out at the altar of
burnt-offering emphasised the acceptability of Christ’s sacrifice to
God.
The restitution to communion of the
company is indicated by the fact that the priest also put the blood
on the horns of the “altar of fragrant incense” (v7)
within the holy place. Incense refers to the fragrance
of Christ offered up in the prayers of the saints (see Ps. 141: 2;
Rev. 5: 8). Sin had interrupted the communion of Israel with God,
but with the application of the blood to the golden altar, her
priests could fulfil their duties on the nation’s behalf and offer
“a continual incense before Jehovah” (Exod. 30: 8).
The Work of Burning
Priestly work was also involved in the
presentation of the fat of the offering to God: “And all its fat
shall he take off from it and burn on the altar” (v19). The standard
was “as it is taken off from the ox of the sacrifice of
peace-offering” (v10) or ‘fellowship’ offering—in keeping with the
purpose of the sin offering being to restore communion with God.
Fat, being the body’s energy store, speaks of Christ’s exhaustive
devotion to the will of God, and no aspect of this was to be
unnoticed for “all the fat … shall he take
off from it” (v8, my emphasis). Thus even in that offering, where
Christ is “made sin for us” (2 Cor. 5: 21), the intrinsic excellence
of Christ as providing satisfaction to the heart of God is not
overlooked.
Of course, in the burnt offering—where
God’s satisfaction in the sacrifice is prominent—“the priest shall
burn all on the altar” (Lev. 1: 9). Not so in the sin offering, for
there “the whole bullock” (Lev. 4: 12) was to be carried “outside
the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out” and
burnt “on wood with fire” (v12). The offering is thus thoroughly
identified with the sin confessed—it is burnt outside the camp, in
the place where the ashes are poured out (ashes witnessing to a
complete judgment of sin). There is therefore an alignment with the
procedure on the day of atonement, “for of those beasts whose blood
is carried [as sacrifices for sin] into the [holy of] holies by the
high priest, of these the bodies are burned outside the camp.
Wherefore also Jesus, that he might sanctify the people by his own
blood, suffered without the gate” (Heb. 13: 11, 12).
The Sin Offering for the Prince
When we come to the sin offerings for the prince
and the common people, an important difference presents itself. All
were involved in the sin of the assembly, and in the case of the
priest that is anointed, his sin also implicated the company. With
the sin of the prince or the sin of “any one of the people of the
land” (Lev. 4: 27) the guilt attached to the party concerned alone.
It was a matter of individual conscience.
The first case then is “When a prince
sinneth and through inadvertence doeth [somewhat against] any of all
the commandments of Jehovah his God [in things] which should not be
done, and is guilty” (Lev. 4: 22). A prince would represent someone
spiritually prominent among God’s people—and the gravity of such
falling into sin is all the greater. This is reflected in the
response that God demanded, for while the sinner among the common
people was to take a female goat or sheep, the prince was to “bring
his offering, a buck of the goats” (v23)—a more valuable animal. It
is not that his sin was more difficult to remedy, but that he, being
a prince, was expected to have a larger appreciation of what was
required to bring about atonement. Only in his case is Jehovah
referred to as “his God” (v22, my
emphasis)—an expression which emphasises his enhanced responsibility
as a leader.
The procedure also differed from that
for the company in that instead of the priest sprinkling the blood
“seven times before Jehovah, before the veil” and putting it “on the
horns of the altar that is before Jehovah” (vs. 17, 18)—that is the
golden altar—the blood was put “on the
horns of the altar of burnt offering” (v25)—the brazen
altar. The golden altar was where the priests (as representing the
nation) offered the nation’s worship, but the brazen altar was the
means of an individual’s approach to God—whether a prince or an
ordinary person. There—where the offerer is accepted as much as
Christ is—the sinner’s interrupted communion was restored.
The Sin Offering for One of the People of
the Land
God, of course, does not only value the communion
of leaders, but also of ‘ordinary’ people, and so provision was also
made “if any one of the people of the land sin through inadvertence”
(v27). The animal is a lesser one compared to the prince, being
either “a goat, a female” (v28) or “a sheep … a female” (v32), but
Jehovah would still have even one of the common people appreciate
the exacting requirements of God’s holiness in regard to sin in His
people. The gravity of sin seems to be deliberately emphasised to
the troubled soul: “if his sin, which he
hath sinned … for his sin
which he hath sinned. And he shall lay his
hand on the head of the sin-offering, and
slaughter the sin-offering …” (vs. 28, 29,
my emphasis). Even more striking is the consolation given to the
ordinary Israelite in v31, where he alone is assured that the fat
burnt on the altar is “for a sweet odour to Jehovah”—God’s
satisfaction in the sacrifice reminding the offerer that he is
accepted just as Christ is accepted, and that he need have no doubt
about restored communion. Again, the sin-offering was to be burned
“with Jehovah’s offerings by fire” (v35)—alluding to the
re-acceptance of the sinner into the worship of the community.
Ignoring the chapter breaks and
paragraphing, it will then be seen that the instruction regarding
the sin offering for “one of the people” (v27) extends to Lev. 5: 13
(as implied by v6—“a sheep or doe goat”). Several cases of sin that
an Israelite might be guilty of are specified in Lev. 5: 1-4—failure
to speak out, defilement by association with unclean things or
uncleanness in man, and rash committal. A vague admittance of guilt
was unacceptable, for the sinner “shall confess wherein he hath
sinned” (v5), and the offence being specified seems to allow for his
sin to be also described as a trespass (see v7) and his sin offering
as a trespass offering (see v6).
Poverty of Soul
For those too poor to bring a goat or sheep, “two
turtle-doves or two young pigeons” (Lev. 5: 7) would suffice, one of
which was to be offered as a sin-offering. The other was to be
offered as a burnt-offering (see v10)—probably as an alternative to
the fat previously offered since birds carry little fat. The
application of the blood also seems to have been unusually liberal
(see v9)—perhaps reflecting that those whose spiritual poverty is
great require a more fulsome testimony to their forgiveness of sins.
If even two birds could not be secured,
then Jehovah would accept what was, in principle, an oblation (see
vs. 11-13). This bloodless offering for sin seems remarkable when
“without blood-shedding there is no remission” (Heb. 9: 22) and yet
it states, “it shall be forgiven him” (Lev. 5: 13). There seems no
realisation on the part of the offerer that the particular sin for
which he is offering required the death of Christ—although the
absence of the usual oil and frankincense (both of which speak of
the delight God found in Christ in life) may suggest a feeble
intuition in the right direction. In any case, God responds in grace
when his children come to him about their sin—for, however ignorant,
the offerer was one of the people of God for whom the blood on the
day of atonement had cleansed them “from their transgressions in all
their sins” (Lev. 16: 16).
The Law of the Sin Offering
From the law of the
sin-offering (see Lev. 6: 24-30) we learn that “The priest that
offereth it for sin shall eat it: in a holy place shall it be eaten,
in the court of the tent of meeting” (v26). Hence not only is sin to
be viewed from the divine standpoint (as being in God’s presence)
but that what Christ has done in being made sin (see 2 Cor. 5: 21)
becomes food for the soul and shapes the eater spiritually. What is
seen typically in the offerer is the confession of sin, but it is as
a priest—one intelligent in divine things—that the sin-offering
becomes food.
Furthermore, the spiritual gain of what
has transpired extends beyond the individual, for “All the males
among the priests” (Lev. 6: 29)—that is, children as well—were to
eat of the sin-offering. However, there was an exception: “no
sin-offering whereof blood hath been brought to the tent of meeting,
to make atonement in the sanctuary, shall be eaten” (v30)—meaning
those offered for the priest or the whole assembly. There the
character of the sin was especially grave, for communion was
interrupted for all, and so atonement was to be made in
the sanctuary, and the offering wholly
burnt (see Lev. 4: 11, 12; 21).
The law of the sin-offering also guards
against any thought of it being viewed as lower in character than
the burnt offering, for “At the place where the burnt-offering is
slaughtered shall the sin-offering be slaughtered before Jehovah. It
is most holy” (Lev. 6: 25, my emphasis).
Again, “Everything that toucheth the flesh thereof shall be holy;
and if there be splashed of the blood thereof on a garment—that
whereon it is sprinkled shalt thou wash in a holy place. And the
earthen vessel wherein it hath been sodden shall be broken; and if
it have been sodden in a copper pot, it shall be both scoured and
rinsed with water” (vs. 27, 28). This speaks of how the sin-offering
was to have a sanctifying effect on the whole life of the offerer.
Indeed, all that we are naturally—the earthen vessel (see 2 Cor. 4:
7)—has no place in relation to these things and must go.
Conclusion
Necessarily, this has been a rapid (and
inadequate) survey of the teaching of the sin-offering, and further
study by the reader will certainly be rewarded. Above all, may we
discover the “things concerning himself” (Luke 24: 27) in these
precious OT Scriptures!
